The two fields of urban planning and urban design are considered as essentially the same, or more correctly, urban design is seen as a subfield of urban planning, particularly concerned with urban form and aesthetics (Gunder, 2011; Gleye, 2014). They constitute two parts of a bifurcated heritage in which urban design was more oriented towards physical planning and urban planning more oriented towards socio-economic policy (Gleye, 2014). The concept of place is absent in the theory of urban planning. Friedman, in his book Planning in the Public Domain (1987), traced what he considered as the four major traditions of urban thought, without any link to a visual and physical environment: the realms of social reforms, policy analysis, social learning and social mobilization.
It is argued in the literature (Gunder, 2011; Cuthbert, 2001; Madanipour, 2006) that there is, particularly in recent years, a dominance of urban design over urban planning, given the former’s greater visibility. Urban design is considered as a facet of a globalised and neoliberal market, that mirrors ‘the commodification of the built environment for the achievement of capital accumulation under competitive globalization’ (Gunder, 2011, p.
185). Urban design initiatives go together with the enhancement of city image, and the
‘increased public sector focus on the promotion of local distinctiveness’ (Punter, 2007, p.
169). Moreover, the rise of urban design is linked to the deployment of large mega-projects, increasingly adopted to create an image for competitive cities, and led by the private sector (Madanipour, 2006; Carmona, 2009).
It is often assumed that urban planners have failed in bringing about more just, sustainable, efficient and beautiful cities (Campanella, 2011). Gleye (2014) considers that urban planners – at least in the USA – are often judged by the resulting physical character of a city that people can experience and see.
A general dissatisfaction with urban planning, compared to urban design, can be noticed, mainly because of the restrictive regulatory land use planning codes, and the failure of urban planners in addressing the pressing challenges of cities under neoliberalism. Planners are considered constrained by a rigid system of codes, while urban design displays a flexibility that generates design options at every step of the process (Van Assche et al., 2012). Gleye (2014) contends that planners have sidestepped a vision of the city as a place,
without replacing it with convincing arguments for the essential role of socio-economic concern for the urban future. Madanipour (2006) considers that architects and planners lost interest in imagining the future shape of the urban environment, and that urban design has filled this gap by imagining the future of the city in new ways at a more concrete level than that of urban planning.
Under neoliberalism and the prevalence of urban design, good government has come to be perceived as assisting the market by weakening traditional regulation (Hackworth, 2007;
Gunder, 2011). Increasingly, it is argued that market forces are more efficient in managing the built environment than the classical prescriptions of urban planning and the related regulatory process.
However, it is assumed that urban planning – through governments – still has a crucial role in providing environmental regulatory frameworks, ensuring acceptable thresholds of environmental impact and also an ‘engagement with spatial political economy and its adverse societal effects as they pertain to social equity, environmental justice, multiculturalism, and the like’ (Gunder, 2011, p. 190). Gunder argues as well that, if urban design is often perceived as a mirror of capitalism, urban planning is traditionally perceived as mirroring a ‘caring’ state, through fairness and a respect for diversity, difference and ecological sustainability.
Besides the economic, social and environmental concerns, planning is considered – in contrast to urban design – as committed to a long-term vision. Moreover, planning has the ability to draw on its close ties with social sciences in evaluation methods, as for example for evaluating programs, which is a well-established discipline (Gleye, 2014).
Cuthbert (2007) argues that urban design has failed as an independent discipline because there has been no concerted attempt to link the material creation of urban space to fundamental societal processes beyond that of the market, and because it lacks critical reflection. ‘Under neoliberalism, the question remains: does the private sector and the entrepreneurial state want reflective planners concerned with the public good, who also happen to have good urban design skills?’ (Gunder, 2011, p. 190).
The literature contends that these two domains of planning need to be combined, that urban design should not only be considered as ‘final frosting on the cake’ (Gleye, 2014, p.5), and that the city must be considered from the physical as well as the economic and social point of view. McMahon (2012) concludes that planners spend most of their time focusing on
numbers and that in the future they will need to spend more time instead thinking about the values, customs and characteristics that make a place worth caring about.
Based on the above discussion, we locate here the UMP-based approach within the urban planning-urban design debate. The approach adopted in Dubai can be considered as including aspects from both urban planning and urban design. In that sense it can be considered as a hybrid standing on the fence between the two disciplinary approaches.
Table 3.1 outlines the characteristics under urban planning and urban design as discussed in the previous section. The coloured cells in the table can be related to and illustrated by the UMP-based approach. Hence, Table 3.1 reflects this hybrid nature of the UMP-based approach, though the urban design dimension is relatively more present.
Urban)planning) Urban)design)
Table 3.1: Limits between urban planning and urban design: the coloured cells can be related to the UMPs-based approach
As for the dominant political and economic systems, we consider that the governance system in Dubai can be analysed under two coexistent logics: the logic of a caring state, and the logic of a neoliberal approach aiming at competing with world cities. The first can be illustrated by the land and housing policy by which the government allocates real-estate to nationals. It can be also illustrated by the provision of infrastructure such as roads, public transport, etc., as well as hospitals and museums. However, the neoliberal approach is clearly more dominant in many areas. In Dubai, deliberate deregulation can be seen everywhere, as for example in free zones where laws are adapted and simplified, and at the
megaprojects level, where regulations are tailored to each project. It is also seen in the absence or reduction of taxes and the generally lean regulatory framework that facilitates the establishment of foreign companies.
Fig 3.1: The land committed to UMPs before 2008, in red (Dubai Municipality 2012)
As for the aim of UMPs, we have shown in the previous chapters that they are implemented in a search for high visibility. Megaprojects do not constitute an answer for local needs, nor do they contribute to the implementation of a long-term strategic plan. They are built for an international virtual population. In many cases the projects are not populated, and the capacity of planned megaprojects exceeds population forecasts by a wide margin (see fig.
3.1). The quest for spectacle, records and images is at the core of urban megaprojects in Dubai. The power of imagery is used to project an image of a daring, smart and successful city. Moreover, if we examine published images of projects and aerial views of Dubai, it becomes apparent that a large number of the projects depicted are not built and are only potential ideas. A widely circulated map of Dubai that is frequently seen on real estate blogs and websites shows a series of artificial islands that take the shape of the universe, a broad waterfront in a crescent shape, a huge ‘U’ shaped artificial canal that penetrates the
desert, and many others (see fig. 3.2). These spectacular images contribute increasingly to a perception of Dubai as the city where any extravagant project can be built.
Fig 3.2: A circulated map that includes both existing and non-existing megaprojects.
(Source: purchased from a private office for mapping in Dubai)
The limitation of a unified vision for the city can be seen in the circulated discourse within each project, promoting a self-sufficient project without any concern for complementarity with surrounding projects. A quick overview of UMP self-promotion discourses reveals that these large investments aim at creating independent ‘cities’ within the city, isolating themselves from the city’s real needs or constraints.
‘Business Bay is an incredible project in the heart of Dubai, an entire city with an infrastructure well equipped to promote businesses, trade and luxury living. This cornerstone of the new economic impetus is to be a capital hub for Dubai and the Middle East, it has established a new modern Central Business District (CBD) on the scale of Manhattan and is not only a very desirable place to live but also a major business and trading hub for local as well as international corporations’.
‘Situated in the heart of New Dubai on Sheikh Zayed Road and between two metro stations, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, or JLT, is the ideal address to live, work and play.
JLT’s dynamic lakefront community spread over 200 hectares encompasses 64 attractive residential and commercial towers alongside hotels, leisure and 160 retail outlets with over 50,000 people living and working here’.
‘Dubai Festival City is a 1300 acre, premier waterfront urban community that has been designed to capture the ground breaking 21st Century spirit of Dubai. It offers a rich and vibrant living experience that interconnects the finest, easily accessible shopping, dining, entertainment and leisure, residential community, schools, Hospitality, commercial and 24/7 management. An established creekside mixed-use destination, Dubai Festival City offers an unrivalled community lifestyle with modern luxury, comfort and convenience’.
However, as discussed in previous chapters, the will for a unified vision is strong. The construction of a large number of UMPs, especially between 2000 and 2008, could not take place without a will and a vision imagined by the Sheikh and the elite circle of power steering this UMPs-based approach. The Dubai 2020 and other plans and strategies reflect clearly this will. Though clearly this suggests the presence of clear values and political choices behind urban development and planning in Dubai, public political debate around strategic planning choices or UMP design is inexistent.
All this and many other aspects discussed in previous chapters bring out the hybrid and bipolar nature of Dubai’s UMPs-based approach: government-led strategic planning addressing the whole of Dubai’s territory and building on systemic assessments and projections on one hand, and multiple sites of localized placemaking, led by private sector and parastatals seeking attractiveness, impact and fast profit on the other. One might be led to believe that this is a two-scales orchestrated enterprise where urban planning at large scale orients and encompasses the multiple urban design initiatives at UMP level.
However, in Dubai’s UMPs-based approach, as in other urban planning approaches that give importance to the physical form, the relation is far more complex.